User:Alisand16/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: False memory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because memory is something I struggle with and have always been fascinated by, specifically false memories and how they're created and affect legal cases.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of this article is very short compared to the overall length. It contains all information that is in the article, but only highlights a few sections of what will be discussed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content is all relevant to the main topic, and discusses the background/basics of false memory, as well as situations that would be influenced by false memory and how those memories were conceived. The content was up to date, as the sources used were either from reviews of studies when this topic was first noted or from 2000 on. I did not find any content to be missing, as the article was extensive and covered all part of false memory I could think of, and more.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article was neutral; it provided factual information, as well as unbiased theories/thoughts from research and public surveys. The author did a good job of talking about all aspects of false memory without heavily focusing on one part more than others.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The author used a plethora of sources and cited them when stating facts and statistics. However, there were a few places where a citation was needed but not added. Many sources are current in relative terms, as research on this topic did not start until the 1970's. There were many links in the article and the ones I check worked, bringing me to another Wikipedia page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I enjoyed the construction and organization of this article. The main points made sense with the topic at hand and had subpoints to further organize the article. The rhetoric and vocabulary used allowed the article to easily be read and understood, with definitions and explanations when needed. I did not notice any spelling/grammatical errors while reading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The article had all but one image included, making it a bit of a dull read (as everyone likes pictures/visuals to help understand and picture the information or people being discussed). The picture included did have a relevant caption and was positioned well in the section.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Much input on the talk page is about one section of the article and how that section should have a link to its own page, but there is no longer a page on Wikipedia about it (the Mandela Effect). People also discussed how specific wording was not always the most accurate (could be interpreted differently), and if they added/deleted irrelevant sections to/from the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article has a C rating, as it is extensive, and what I thought as complete and accurate. There is one section that could be improved by adding sources to make it credible and show the information is not plagiarized.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: